Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
option. this is the congressman. >> the public option would decrease the deficit 104 billion over 10 years . >> and not everyone agrees that government health insurance would save money. republican critics say it is too costly and could bankrupt the country so who is right. >> i am dave asbin. welcome to forbes on fox. it is elizabeth mcdonald and rick unger and morgan bren an . we just can't afford a full-blown national health care system. >> no, we can't. every country that tried the health care system experienced higher cost or less health care. with obama care, it is a back door in a single payer system. of course, it costs more. >> mark tage. this is what he has plan obama care is not a single payer plan which is national health care. is that what it is turning into? >> i think it is going to have to be a single payer plan. will this reduce the deficit, no. is your goal here to provide health care to people? >> the private sector has not done a good job of >> it is going two or three times the rate of inflation . >> but you are saying that a government take over of health care w
are going to reduce health care costs in society. will this reduce the deficit? no. it depends on what your goal is here. is your goal here to provide health care to people because the private sector has not done a very good job. >> the government will do better? >> we have seen costs in the private sector go up two to three times the rate of inflation. >> the government takeover would be cheaper and more efficient than the private health sector? >> there would be more people covered and the cost would be lower if we had a government plan, a government -- >> is there anyway to prove that contention? >> no, i hear what mark is saying. and by the way this congressman is someone who said we should unionize doctors. we have a veterans administration who is doing health care that was not so great. i wish it was better. for the one size fits all approach, it is costly. we don't have the same demographics as britain and canada. even the health care costs rise dramatically in those countries. and this bill which i read is saying that they would pay out increasing taxpayer funds to increase coverage
is not the deficits, but the fact that federal government collects 2.5 trillion. with the consumption or sales tax, this is the lone way we can limit how much money gets to the federal government and more businesses would be created and jobs and the federal government would not be penalizing our work and we would get more work and jobs. >> sounds good to me, rick, to you? >> here's the problem. i will not touch incredibly regressive nature of this. >> by regressive, it hits the poor more than the rich? >> exactly. put the brakes on a economy, imagine what happens here. first of all, to keep the revenue neutral, you are looking at a 20r 30 percent sales tax . add that to the state tax that governor gindale wants to add. no one will be able to afford it or go shopping. >> steve, this is a country of experiment ground . the states experiment with things that might do better. >> there are 9 states who don't have a personal income tax. you compare the state of vermont with the state of new hampshire. new hampshire has no sales tax or personal income tax and does better over time than the neighboring st
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)